With the exception of the Churches of Jerusalem (participates to a very limited extent) and Bulgaria I think that all Orthodox Churches participate in dialogue with Catholics and to a lesser extent with Protestants.

Let me recycle an older post dealing with our involvement with the various dialogues.

Orthodox Ecumenism: The 50 Years from Oberlin 1957 to Ravenna 2007

To get some sense of balance and background knowledge into this conversation Iwant to present a few official examples which show the consistency andultra-conservatism of the official Orthodox viewpoint throughout the years ofecumenism... the unbending and inflexible insistence that Orthodoxy aloneconstitutes the One Church. Yes, there were weird lapses at some events such asthe pagan smoke ceremony but on a deeper level the Orthodox have not strayedfrom their own reality.

1. 1957.... The Statement of the Representatives of the Greek OrthodoxChurch in the USA at the North American Faith and Order StudyConference, Oberlin, Ohio, September 1957. This is quite unequivocalabout the uniqueness of Orthodoxy as the Church.

2. 1980s.... The contretemps in the 1980s at the International RomanCatholic-Orthodox Theological Dialogue which saw a walk-out of theCatholic participants when the Orthodox delegates declared that theywere unable to accept Catholic baptism per se. These were not fringypalaeohiemerologhites but the most ecumenically minded bishops andtheologians of the canonical Orthodox Churches. This question hasnever been revisited in the international dialogue but one day it willneed to be faced head on.

"The Orthodox Church, however, faithful to her ecclesiology, to theidentity of her internal structure and to the teaching of theundivided Church, while participating in the WCC, does not accept theidea of the "equality of confessions" and cannot consider Churchunity as an inter-confessional adjustment. In this spirit, the unitywhich is sought within the WCC cannot simply be the product oftheological agreements alone. God calls every Christian to the unityof faith which is lived in the sacraments and the tradition, asexperienced in the Orthodox Church."

Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar Conference, Chambesy,1986

4. 1997..... Even the most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth HisDivine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with hispresentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when hedeclared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward onecommon model of life is achieved, not only in form but also insubstance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

The Jesuits declared morosely that Patr. Bartholomew had set thedialogue back 10 years. Nobody else really understood whatthe Patriarch had said,

5. 2000..... The important Statement on Orthodoxy and its ecumenicalrelationships with non-Orthodox Churches issued by the 2000Millennial Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church:

"Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward theOther Christian Confessions"

It basically repeats what the Greeks said at Oberlin Ohio in 1957and even more emphatically - the boundaries of the Church arethe Orthodox Church herself.

Concerning the Branch Theory...2.5. "The so-called "branch theory", which is connected with the conceptionreferred to above and asserts the normal and even providential nature ofChristianity existing in the form of particular "branches", is also totallyunacceptable."

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize thatthe use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "theindivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and insimilar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no wayundermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creedspeaks."

Granted, that's an impressive list of quotes. If I'm not mistaken, however, there's no agreement on whether the Oriental Orthodox are "outside of the Church". (Not that I've ever been Oriental Orthodox.)

I think there is agreement. I have never seen a statement from an Orthodox Synod that the Oriental Orthodox are members of our Church and that we are in communion with them. I have never heard of a bishop of our Church serving Liturgy with an Oriental bishop.

It's been a little while since I read the Ravenna document, and I don't feel like rereading the whole thing. Is this the relevant part:

Concerning primacy at the different levels, we wish to affirm the following points:

1. Primacy at all levels is a practice firmly grounded in the canonical tradition of the Church.

2. While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West,

This is such an egregious lie that it takes the breath away. They cannot produce one canon which speaks of primacy at the universal level. It is really distressing to see the Orthodox present at this meeting promulgate such a gross lie. God forgive them!

As far as I can see they are simply presenting another possible Orthodox perspective and understanding of history.

It's been a little while since I read the Ravenna document, and I don't feel like rereading the whole thing. Is this the relevant part:

Concerning primacy at the different levels, we wish to affirm the following points:

1. Primacy at all levels is a practice firmly grounded in the canonical tradition of the Church.

2. While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West,

This is such an egregious lie that it takes the breath away. They cannot produce one canon which speaks of primacy at the universal level. It is really distressing to see the Orthodox present at this meeting promulgate such a gross lie. God forgive them!

As far as I can see they are simply presenting another possible Orthodox perspective and understanding of history.

God forgive you for condemning them falsely.

Let me repeat...

It is a lie for any Orthodox to state "Primacy at all levels is a practice firmly grounded in the canonical tradition of the Church."

It is another lie to state "While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West."

Show us the canons or in fact anything from an Ecumenical Council dealing with primacy on the universal level.

Show us even just one canon which describes universal primacy, which designates who exercises it and how he exercises it, which speaks of the relationship of that person to the Church and his authority over the Church.

It was precisely this erroneous and deceptive statement in the Ravenna Statement which horrified the bishops of Greece and made them forbid the issuing of any further Joint Statements without the approval of their Synod.

I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church. I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon. As we have been repeatedly told by our Catholic friends here: if it is not magisterial teaching (limbo, etc.) do not claim it as part of Catholic doctrinal teaching.

A related question to the OP regarding the possibility of theosis is the question of the way. Is there a difference of way, as described by Vladimir Lossky? :

"Since the separation, the ways which lead to sanctity are not the same in the West as in the East. The one proves its fidelity to Christ in the solitude and abandonment of the night of Gethsemane, the other gains certainty of union with God in the light of the Transfiguration." -Vladimir Lossky, MTEC (this is but one example of how Lossky considers the ways which lead to sanctity to differ W vs. E; judicial merit theology -dogmatically integral only in the West- also comes to mind among other things).

Also the question of what one might be moving toward along the way is worth discussing, it seems to me, e.g. do Roman Catholics embrace the Orthodox view of union with the uncreated energies of God as affirmed by St. Gregory Palamas? (which is, of course, what theosis is from an Orthodox POV).

I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church. I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon. As we have been repeatedly told by our Catholic friends here: if it is not magisterial teaching (limbo, etc.) do not claim it as part of Catholic doctrinal teaching.

Now you have, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

759 ”The eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life,” to which he calls all men in his Son. “The Father . . . determined to call together in a holy Church those who should believe in Christ.” This “family of God” is gradually formed and takes shape during the stages of human history, in keeping with the Father’s plan. In fact, “already present in figure at the beginning of the world, this Church was prepared in marvelous fashion in the history of the people of Israel and the old Advance. Established in this last age of the world and made manifest in the outpouring of the Spirit, it will be brought to glorious completion at the end of time.”

1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ’s Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself: [God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . . For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification: Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.

As far as I can see they are simply presenting another possible Orthodox perspective and understanding of history.

Well, it's certainly another possible perspective and understanding of history. Whether it's Orthodox or not would be a separate question that can only validated by checking it against things Orthodox actually consider authoritative, like synodical decisions, the declarations of ecumenical councils, etc.

This is going to take this thread even further off-topic but I think it's important to clarify how Orthodox view these joint statements because one of the strongest non-traditionalist arguments against the way Orthodoxy currently conducts ecumenism is that it is actually very misleading to those we are dialoguing with.

When Rome sends representatives to one of these consultations, those representatives actually ‘represent’ Rome, in the sense that even if the Pope didn’t hand-pick them, someone who answers to the Pope, or someone who answers to someone who answers to the Pope did so. And if the Pope doesn’t feel they are doing a good job representing the Roman position, they can and will be replaced. Orthodoxy doesn’t work like that—even if you think of it in terms of each representative representing only his own autocephalous church, he does not do so in the same sense that Roman representatives represent the Pope.

Orthodox synods like to do things by consensus when possible. One practical consequence of this is that when an issue comes before the synod and a minority of bishops feel very strongly about it, while the majority don’t have strong feelings one way or the other (or are even slightly negative, but to a lesser degree than the positive side is positive), it is not at all uncommon for the synod to let the minority have their way. So when the administrative synod of a local Church meets and the topic comes up ‘we’re invited to such-and-such consultation’, there may be only two or three bishops who have strong feelings that the Church should send a representative, while the rest of the bishops think, “I’m not interested, but I suppose there’s no harm in talking.’ And thus the synod decides to send representatives in a decision that really amounts to ‘well, let Bishops X & Y do what they want, it doesn’t really matter’. And so representatives ‘from Local Church X’ are selected and go to the consultation. But they don’t actually represent the primate, or the entire synod, or even the entire administrative synod. They actually represent the 2 or 3 bishops who are most pro-dialogue in the entire Church. If the representative actually is a hierarch, then he at least represents 1 vote in the synod. But If he’s not a hierarch then he’s generally a compromise candidates, meaning that while he was selected by the bishops who were pro-dialogue, he doesn’t actually representative any of them individually, and he may disagree with each on a number of individual topics.

This is why Orthodox rarely treat ‘Joint Statements’ as particularly persuasive much less authoritative. For us, they are little more than the personal opinions of the attendees—attendees that are largely self-selected from the most extreme pro-ecumenical margin of the Church in the first place. If the opinions are Orthodox, they can be supported the same way any other Orthodox opinion is—by reference to Scripture, the Fathers, and the formal decisions of synods. If they are not, there presence in a ‘Joint Statement’ doesn’t make them any more Orthodox. As many problems as I have with Lyons and Florence they represent the only type of ecumenical dialogue whose pronouncements can actually mean anything—because the synod actually participated rather than simply acquiescing to someone going off to talk.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

As far as I can see they are simply presenting another possible Orthodox perspective and understanding of history.

Well, it's certainly another possible perspective and understanding of history. Whether it's Orthodox or not would be a separate question that can only validated by checking it against things Orthodox actually consider authoritative, like synodical decisions, the declarations of ecumenical councils, etc.

This is going to take this thread even further off-topic but I think it's important to clarify how Orthodox view these joint statements because one of the strongest non-traditionalist arguments against the way Orthodoxy currently conducts ecumenism is that it is actually very misleading to those we are dialoguing with.

When Rome sends representatives to one of these consultations, those representatives actually ‘represent’ Rome, in the sense that even if the Pope didn’t hand-pick them, someone who answers to the Pope, or someone who answers to someone who answers to the Pope did so. And if the Pope doesn’t feel they are doing a good job representing the Roman position, they can and will be replaced. Orthodoxy doesn’t work like that—even if you think of it in terms of each representative representing only his own autocephalous church, he does not do so in the same sense that Roman representatives represent the Pope.

Orthodox synods like to do things by consensus when possible. One practical consequence of this is that when an issue comes before the synod and a minority of bishops feel very strongly about it, while the majority don’t have strong feelings one way or the other (or are even slightly negative, but to a lesser degree than the positive side is positive), it is not at all uncommon for the synod to let the minority have their way. So when the administrative synod of a local Church meets and the topic comes up ‘we’re invited to such-and-such consultation’, there may be only two or three bishops who have strong feelings that the Church should send a representative, while the rest of the bishops think, “I’m not interested, but I suppose there’s no harm in talking.’ And thus the synod decides to send representatives in a decision that really amounts to ‘well, let Bishops X & Y do what they want, it doesn’t really matter’. And so representatives ‘from Local Church X’ are selected and go to the consultation. But they don’t actually represent the primate, or the entire synod, or even the entire administrative synod. They actually represent the 2 or 3 bishops who are most pro-dialogue in the entire Church. If the representative actually is a hierarch, then he at least represents 1 vote in the synod. But If he’s not a hierarch then he’s generally a compromise candidates, meaning that while he was selected by the bishops who were pro-dialogue, he doesn’t actually representative any of them individually, and he may disagree with each on a number of individual topics.

This is why Orthodox rarely treat ‘Joint Statements’ as particularly persuasive much less authoritative. For us, they are little more than the personal opinions of the attendees—attendees that are largely self-selected from the most extreme pro-ecumenical margin of the Church in the first place. If the opinions are Orthodox, they can be supported the same way any other Orthodox opinion is—by reference to Scripture, the Fathers, and the formal decisions of synods. If they are not, there presence in a ‘Joint Statement’ doesn’t make them any more Orthodox. As many problems as I have with Lyons and Florence they represent the only type of ecumenical dialogue whose pronouncements can actually mean anything—because the synod actually participated rather than simply acquiescing to someone going off to talk.

Thanks for that post, witega. I don't think I've ever heard it described like that before.

One question (for now, maybe more tomorrow): Does what you said apply strictly to EO-RC dialogue, or does it also apply to EO-OO dialogue?

Thanks for that post, witega. I don't think I've ever heard it described like that before.

One question (for now, maybe more tomorrow): Does what you said apply strictly to EO-RC dialogue, or does it also apply to EO-OO dialogue?

I would say yes and no.

Objectively yes. What I described above is basically systemic and applies to any ecumenical activity the EO participate in.

The no part of my answer is more subjective, but my perception is that while the 'Joint Declarations' themselves aren't any more authoritative than the ones from the EO-RC dialogue, the contents aren't nearly so controversial. That is, when people who aren't direct participants in the dialogue start to compare them "Scripture, the Fathers, and the formal decisions of synods" they stand up much better, and one doesn't see the kind of extended critiques by hierarchs and theologians one sees of the EO-RC declarations. Beyond that, our hieararchs seem much more directly engaged with that dialogue--which might a product of circumstance (much more shared geography, language, and culture between whole synods) or a chicken-and-egg thing (initial meetings were particularly positive which resulted in more hierarchical attention which resulted in more real progress, etc). Indeed, my impression of the EO-OO dialogue is that at this point its almost the opposite of what I described above--that is, that the majority of bishops are positive or very positive, but since the next step really *will* matter, no one wants to make the final move without complete unanimity which hasn't quite been achieved yet.

(And I don't want to speak for the OO's but I rather get the impression that most of what I said in the first and this post would apply to them as well).

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

A related question to the OP regarding the possibility of theosis is the question of the way. Is there a difference of way, as described by Vladimir Lossky? :

"Since the separation, the ways which lead to sanctity are not the same in the West as in the East. The one proves its fidelity to Christ in the solitude and abandonment of the night of Gethsemane, the other gains certainty of union with God in the light of the Transfiguration." -Vladimir Lossky, MTEC (this is but one example of how Lossky considers the ways which lead to sanctity to differ W vs. E; judicial merit theology -dogmatically integral only in the West- also comes to mind among other things).

Also the question of what one might be moving toward along the way is worth discussing, it seems to me, e.g. do Roman Catholics embrace the Orthodox view of union with the uncreated energies of God as affirmed by St. Gregory Palamas? (which is, of course, what theosis is from an Orthodox POV).

Dear Xariskai,

I think you are moving into the heart of the matter...... the question, for Catholics, hinges on whether theosis is seen as possible within their theology.

In fact it does not appear to bepossible since in order for theosis to “work” one must accept several important theological understandings which are strongly denied in classic Roman Catholic theology – the distinction within the Divinity of Essence and Energies being the most crucial.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Hesychasm written by Father Adrian Fortescue http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm highlights why Hesychasm (and hence theosis) cannot work in Catholic theology. It is contrary to the foundational Catholic understanding of the simplicity of God and to Catholic understandings of grace (created vs. uncreated.)

The OP’s question is therefore answered with a No! - not by the Orthodox but by the theology of Catholicism itself.

The citations from the Catechism are not entirely apropos since they do not address the Essence-Energy distinction, nor do they explicilty state that grace is God. It coyly avoids that since this idea only began to be acceptable in the 1940s with the writings of Karl Rahner and was seen as a revolutionary approach at the time. It is still not welcomed in much of Catholicism.

It is also worrying that they appear to be at odds with what the Catholic Encyclopedia writes. One or the other must be erroneous teaching. Is this an example of the Catholic Church changing its teaching after Vatican II and , in this instance, moving their people closer to Orthodoxy? It must be welcomed.

I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church. I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon. As we have been repeatedly told by our Catholic friends here: if it is not magisterial teaching (limbo, etc.) do not claim it as part of Catholic doctrinal teaching.

Now you have, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

759 ”The eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life,” to which he calls all men in his Son. “The Father . . . determined to call together in a holy Church those who should believe in Christ.” This “family of God” is gradually formed and takes shape during the stages of human history, in keeping with the Father’s plan. In fact, “already present in figure at the beginning of the world, this Church was prepared in marvelous fashion in the history of the people of Israel and the old Advance. Established in this last age of the world and made manifest in the outpouring of the Spirit, it will be brought to glorious completion at the end of time.”

1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ’s Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself: [God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . . For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification: Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.

As far as I can see they are simply presenting another possible Orthodox perspective and understanding of history.

Well, it's certainly another possible perspective and understanding of history. Whether it's Orthodox or not would be a separate question that can only validated by checking it against things Orthodox actually consider authoritative, like synodical decisions, the declarations of ecumenical councils, etc.

This is going to take this thread even further off-topic but I think it's important to clarify how Orthodox view these joint statements because one of the strongest non-traditionalist arguments against the way Orthodoxy currently conducts ecumenism is that it is actually very misleading to those we are dialoguing with.

When Rome sends representatives to one of these consultations, those representatives actually ‘represent’ Rome, in the sense that even if the Pope didn’t hand-pick them, someone who answers to the Pope, or someone who answers to someone who answers to the Pope did so. And if the Pope doesn’t feel they are doing a good job representing the Roman position, they can and will be replaced. Orthodoxy doesn’t work like that—even if you think of it in terms of each representative representing only his own autocephalous church, he does not do so in the same sense that Roman representatives represent the Pope.

Orthodox synods like to do things by consensus when possible. One practical consequence of this is that when an issue comes before the synod and a minority of bishops feel very strongly about it, while the majority don’t have strong feelings one way or the other (or are even slightly negative, but to a lesser degree than the positive side is positive), it is not at all uncommon for the synod to let the minority have their way. So when the administrative synod of a local Church meets and the topic comes up ‘we’re invited to such-and-such consultation’, there may be only two or three bishops who have strong feelings that the Church should send a representative, while the rest of the bishops think, “I’m not interested, but I suppose there’s no harm in talking.’ And thus the synod decides to send representatives in a decision that really amounts to ‘well, let Bishops X & Y do what they want, it doesn’t really matter’. And so representatives ‘from Local Church X’ are selected and go to the consultation. But they don’t actually represent the primate, or the entire synod, or even the entire administrative synod. They actually represent the 2 or 3 bishops who are most pro-dialogue in the entire Church. If the representative actually is a hierarch, then he at least represents 1 vote in the synod. But If he’s not a hierarch then he’s generally a compromise candidates, meaning that while he was selected by the bishops who were pro-dialogue, he doesn’t actually representative any of them individually, and he may disagree with each on a number of individual topics.

This is why Orthodox rarely treat ‘Joint Statements’ as particularly persuasive much less authoritative. For us, they are little more than the personal opinions of the attendees—attendees that are largely self-selected from the most extreme pro-ecumenical margin of the Church in the first place. If the opinions are Orthodox, they can be supported the same way any other Orthodox opinion is—by reference to Scripture, the Fathers, and the formal decisions of synods. If they are not, there presence in a ‘Joint Statement’ doesn’t make them any more Orthodox. As many problems as I have with Lyons and Florence they represent the only type of ecumenical dialogue whose pronouncements can actually mean anything—because the synod actually participated rather than simply acquiescing to someone going off to talk.

Thanks for that post, witega. I don't think I've ever heard it described like that before.

I made mention of it in post 168, and have written of it in several places in other threads. Not as eloquently as Witega though.

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

yep, that's theosis

Then somebody should announce the glad tidings to the Catholic faithful. Talk of theosis and becoming "partakers of the divine nature" generally astounds them and they ask, with a glazed look in their eyes "Father, have you become a Buddhist?"

They will then try to explain to you that eternal life is NOT about participation in Divinity but about the Beatific Vision of God. And that is indeed the authentic Catholic teaching.

"That the blessed see God is a dogma of faith, expressly defined by Benedict XII (1336):

"We define that the souls of all the saints in heaven have seen and do see the Divine Essence by direct intuition and face to face [visione intuitivâ et etiam faciali], in such wise that nothing created intervenes as an object of vision, but the Divine Essence presents itself to their immediate gaze, unveiled, clearly and openly; moreover, that in this vision they enjoy the Divine Essence, and that, in virtue of this vision and this enjoyment, they are truly blessed and possess eternal life and eternal rest" (Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. 10, n. 530--old edition, n, 456; cf. nn. 693, 1084, 1458 old, nn. 588, 868)."

The citations from the Catechism are not entirely apropos since they do not address the Essence-Energy distinction, nor do they explicilty state that grace is God. It coyly avoids that since this idea only began to be acceptable in the 1940s with the writings of Karl Rahner and was seen as a revolutionary approach at the time. It is still not welcomed in much of Catholicism.

It is also worrying that they appear to be at odds with what the Catholic Encyclopedia writes. One or the other must be erroneous teaching. Is this an example of the Catholic Church changing its teaching after Vatican II and , in this instance, moving their people closer to Orthodoxy? It must be welcomed.

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is popular because of the websites that promote it: Newadvent, Catholic.com, and Catholicity (also Catholic.org IIRC).

I don't really know what Newadvent's owner's persuasion is (the website seems to have only one mission: promoting the Catholic Encyclopedia) but Catholic.com and Catholicity are definitely neo-conservative Catholic.

Thanks for that post, witega. I don't think I've ever heard it described like that before.

One question (for now, maybe more tomorrow): Does what you said apply strictly to EO-RC dialogue, or does it also apply to EO-OO dialogue?

I would say yes and no.

Objectively yes. What I described above is basically systemic and applies to any ecumenical activity the EO participate in.

The no part of my answer is more subjective, but my perception is that while the 'Joint Declarations' themselves aren't any more authoritative than the ones from the EO-RC dialogue, the contents aren't nearly so controversial. That is, when people who aren't direct participants in the dialogue start to compare them "Scripture, the Fathers, and the formal decisions of synods" they stand up much better, and one doesn't see the kind of extended critiques by hierarchs and theologians one sees of the EO-RC declarations. Beyond that, our hieararchs seem much more directly engaged with that dialogue--which might a product of circumstance (much more shared geography, language, and culture between whole synods) or a chicken-and-egg thing (initial meetings were particularly positive which resulted in more hierarchical attention which resulted in more real progress, etc). Indeed, my impression of the EO-OO dialogue is that at this point its almost the opposite of what I described above--that is, that the majority of bishops are positive or very positive, but since the next step really *will* matter, no one wants to make the final move without complete unanimity which hasn't quite been achieved yet.

(And I don't want to speak for the OO's but I rather get the impression that most of what I said in the first and this post would apply to them as well).

As far as I can see they are simply presenting another possible Orthodox perspective and understanding of history.

Well, it's certainly another possible perspective and understanding of history. Whether it's Orthodox or not would be a separate question that can only validated by checking it against things Orthodox actually consider authoritative, like synodical decisions, the declarations of ecumenical councils, etc.

This is going to take this thread even further off-topic but I think it's important to clarify how Orthodox view these joint statements because one of the strongest non-traditionalist arguments against the way Orthodoxy currently conducts ecumenism is that it is actually very misleading to those we are dialoguing with.

When Rome sends representatives to one of these consultations, those representatives actually ‘represent’ Rome, in the sense that even if the Pope didn’t hand-pick them, someone who answers to the Pope, or someone who answers to someone who answers to the Pope did so. And if the Pope doesn’t feel they are doing a good job representing the Roman position, they can and will be replaced. Orthodoxy doesn’t work like that—even if you think of it in terms of each representative representing only his own autocephalous church, he does not do so in the same sense that Roman representatives represent the Pope.

Orthodox synods like to do things by consensus when possible. One practical consequence of this is that when an issue comes before the synod and a minority of bishops feel very strongly about it, while the majority don’t have strong feelings one way or the other (or are even slightly negative, but to a lesser degree than the positive side is positive), it is not at all uncommon for the synod to let the minority have their way. So when the administrative synod of a local Church meets and the topic comes up ‘we’re invited to such-and-such consultation’, there may be only two or three bishops who have strong feelings that the Church should send a representative, while the rest of the bishops think, “I’m not interested, but I suppose there’s no harm in talking.’ And thus the synod decides to send representatives in a decision that really amounts to ‘well, let Bishops X & Y do what they want, it doesn’t really matter’. And so representatives ‘from Local Church X’ are selected and go to the consultation. But they don’t actually represent the primate, or the entire synod, or even the entire administrative synod. They actually represent the 2 or 3 bishops who are most pro-dialogue in the entire Church. If the representative actually is a hierarch, then he at least represents 1 vote in the synod. But If he’s not a hierarch then he’s generally a compromise candidates, meaning that while he was selected by the bishops who were pro-dialogue, he doesn’t actually representative any of them individually, and he may disagree with each on a number of individual topics.

This is why Orthodox rarely treat ‘Joint Statements’ as particularly persuasive much less authoritative. For us, they are little more than the personal opinions of the attendees—attendees that are largely self-selected from the most extreme pro-ecumenical margin of the Church in the first place. If the opinions are Orthodox, they can be supported the same way any other Orthodox opinion is—by reference to Scripture, the Fathers, and the formal decisions of synods. If they are not, there presence in a ‘Joint Statement’ doesn’t make them any more Orthodox. As many problems as I have with Lyons and Florence they represent the only type of ecumenical dialogue whose pronouncements can actually mean anything—because the synod actually participated rather than simply acquiescing to someone going off to talk.

Thanks for that post, witega. I don't think I've ever heard it described like that before.

I made mention of it in post 168,

Perhaps, although I can't say it is easy for me to see how it's the same as what witega said ...

Yes, it is an excellent statement by the bishops of Greece (although the English translation could be improved.)

It places the bishops in the driving seat with the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue and that is where they should always have been. But I believe that they saw ecumenism as the hobby horse of an few enthusiastic theologians and bishops. However when they realised, after Ravenna, that the dialogue was steering into dangerous waters with the discussion of a “worldwide primate” they felt they had to take control.

I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church. I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon.

The citations from the Catechism are not entirely apropos since they do not address the Essence-Energy distinction, nor do they explicilty state that grace is God. It coyly avoids that since this idea only began to be acceptable in the 1940s with the writings of Karl Rahner and was seen as a revolutionary approach at the time. It is still not welcomed in much of Catholicism.

This too is nonsense. Grace is God...Grace is the Indwelling in communication with each person individually.

I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church. I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon.

Nonsense. It is Scriptural.

Nonsense. The ordinary Catholic priest has never heard of it. Are they scripturally challenged? It was completely unknown when I went through the Catholic educational system, primary to tertiary.

Father Adrian Fortescue writes (in the Encyclopedia article) of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration. That comes with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

The citations from the Catechism are not entirely apropos since they do not address the Essence-Energy distinction, nor do they explicilty state that grace is God. It coyly avoids that since this idea only began to be acceptable in the 1940s with the writings of Karl Rahner and was seen as a revolutionary approach at the time. It is still not welcomed in much of Catholicism.

This too is nonsense. Grace is God...Grace is the Indwelling in communication with each person individually.

Ask St. Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross...

Your Catholic formation leaves a great deal to be desired.

I invite you to read the work of the great theologian of last century Karl Rahner, a Jesuit theologian who died about 20 years ago. You will discover that he brought back into the Catholic Church the patristic understanding of grace as God. But you will also discover that this was not a welcome teaching in much of the Catholic Church. In part the Catholic Church is hampered by a lack of developed knowledge of created and uncreated and it works within the categories of natural, praeternatural, supernatural, God (categories not known in the East.)

As far as I am aware ideas on uncreated grace remain a matter of opinion within RC theological circles and have not been proclaimed as official Catholic doctrine.

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

yep, that's theosis

Then somebody should announce the glad tidings to the Catholic faithful. Talk of theosis and becoming "partakers of the divine nature" generally astounds them and they ask, with a glazed look in their eyes "Father, have you become a Buddhist?"

More nonsense. I am surrounded by tens of thousands of Roman rite Catholics who read Scripture and know that divinization is participation in the divine life...as it is told them in Scripture.

You make yourself look silly when you do this kind of thing. I pray you outgrow the need.

I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church. I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon.

Nonsense. It is Scriptural.

Nonsense. The ordinary Catholic priest has never heard of it. Are they scripturally challenged? It was completely unknown when I went through the Catholic educational system, primary to tertiary.

Father Adrian Fortescue writes (in the Encyclopedia article) of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration. That comes with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

You elide hesychasm with theosis as though they are the same thing. They are not equivalent.

Father Adrian did not understand that the breathing exercise of hesychasm was not the same thing as the breathing exercise of the oriental monks of Tibet. His response was culture-bound.

And yes...Your assertion that Catholics do not know that divinization/theosis is our participation in the divine life is indeed nonsense.

PS: I know a few ignorant priests myself. I don't evaluate Catholic teaching because of their idiocies. I remember being told by one that the Church no longer teaches anything about grace because it is too confusing.

I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church. I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon.

Nonsense. It is Scriptural.

Nonsense. The ordinary Catholic priest has never heard of it. Are they scripturally challenged? It was completely unknown when I went through the Catholic educational system, primary to tertiary.

Father Adrian Fortescue writes (in the Encyclopedia article) of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration. That comes with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.

I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church. I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon.

Nonsense. It is Scriptural.

Nonsense. The ordinary Catholic priest has never heard of it. Are they scripturally challenged? It was completely unknown when I went through the Catholic educational system, primary to tertiary.

Father Adrian Fortescue writes (in the Encyclopedia article) of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration. That comes with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

You elide hesychasm with theosis as though they are the same thing. They are not equivalent.

Father Adrian did not understand that the breathing exercise of hesychasm was not the same thing as the breathing exercise of the oriental monks of Tibet. His response was culture-bound.

Fortescue: There was a very faint echo of Hesychasm in the West. Latin theology on the whole was too deeply impregnated with the Aristotelean Scholastic system to tolerate a theory that opposed its very foundation. That all created beings are composed of actus and potentia, that God alone is actus purus, simple as He is infinite — this is the root of all Scholastic natural theology. Nevertheless one or two Latins seem to have had ideas similar to Hesychasm. Gilbertus Porretanus (de la Porrée, d. 1154) is quoted as having said that the Divine essence is not God — implying some kind of real distinction; John of Varennes, a hermit in the Diocese of Reims (c. 1396), said that the Apostles at the Transfiguration had seen the Divine essence as clearly as it is seen in heaven. About the same time John of Brescain made a proposition: Creatam lucem infinitam et immensam esse. But these isolated opinions formed no school. We know of them chiefly through the indignant condemnations they at once provoked. St. Bernard wrote to refute Gilbert de la Porrée; the University of Paris and the legate Odo condemned John of Brescain's proposition. Hesychasm has never had a party among Catholics. In the Orthodox Church the controversy, waged furiously just at the time when the enemies of the empire were finally overturning it and unity among its last defenders was the most crying need, is a significant witness of the decay of a lost cause.

The citations from the Catechism are not entirely apropos since they do not address the Essence-Energy distinction, nor do they explicilty state that grace is God. It coyly avoids that since this idea only began to be acceptable in the 1940s with the writings of Karl Rahner and was seen as a revolutionary approach at the time. It is still not welcomed in much of Catholicism.

This too is nonsense. Grace is God...Grace is the Indwelling in communication with each person individually.

I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church. I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon.

Nonsense. It is Scriptural.

Nonsense. The ordinary Catholic priest has never heard of it. Are they scripturally challenged? It was completely unknown when I went through the Catholic educational system, primary to tertiary.

Father Adrian Fortescue writes (in the Encyclopedia article) of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration. That comes with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.

Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.

As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching. Absent something from the Magisterium it is pie in the sky - and this is what we see here.

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

yep, that's theosis

Then somebody should announce the glad tidings to the Catholic faithful. Talk of theosis and becoming "partakers of the divine nature" generally astounds them and they ask, with a glazed look in their eyes "Father, have you become a Buddhist?"

More nonsense. I am surrounded by tens of thousands of Roman rite Catholics who read Scripture and know that divinization is participation in the divine life...as it is told them in Scripture.

You make yourself look silly when you do this kind of thing. I pray you outgrow the need.

They will then try to explain to you that eternal life is NOT about participation in Divinity but about the Beatific Vision of God. And that is indeed the authentic Catholic teaching.

"That the blessed see God is a dogma of faith, expressly defined by Benedict XII (1336):

"We define that the souls of all the saints in heaven have seen and do see the Divine Essence by direct intuition and face to face [visione intuitivâ et etiam faciali], in such wise that nothing created intervenes as an object of vision, but the Divine Essence presents itself to their immediate gaze, unveiled, clearly and openly; moreover, that in this vision they enjoy the Divine Essence, and that, in virtue of this vision and this enjoyment, they are truly blessed and possess eternal life and eternal rest" (Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. 10, n. 530--old edition, n, 456; cf. nn. 693, 1084, 1458 old, nn. 588, 868)."

There is no need to point out how entirely antithetical the papal teaching is for the Orthodox.

Wow that is completely opposed to EO thought...so if Catholics believe in theosis, would they believe that they participate in the essence of God (i.e. become God by nature)? Sounds like a slippery slope for me...if they can clearly see and "enjoy" the Divine Essence, then what stops them from participating in it?

The citations from the Catechism are not entirely apropos since they do not address the Essence-Energy distinction, nor do they explicilty state that grace is God. It coyly avoids that since this idea only began to be acceptable in the 1940s with the writings of Karl Rahner and was seen as a revolutionary approach at the time. It is still not welcomed in much of Catholicism.

This too is nonsense. Grace is God...Grace is the Indwelling in communication with each person individually.

Ask St. Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross...

Your Catholic formation leaves a great deal to be desired.

I thought grace was created according to Catholics?

"Created grace" is a manner of speaking. It does not mean that grace is something that is created by God, that is aside from God. It means that God imparts himself to us in such a way so as we are not burned to a crisp by His gift of grace...so to speak. Aquinas, who offers the teaching, never uses the phrase "created grace". The west does not use the language of essence and energies but he speaks in terms the sun and the sun's rays by analogy. It became common in the more recent centuries to refer to "created grace"...but the meaning is as I have described it here.

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

yep, that's theosis

Then somebody should announce the glad tidings to the Catholic faithful. Talk of theosis and becoming "partakers of the divine nature" generally astounds them and they ask, with a glazed look in their eyes "Father, have you become a Buddhist?"

More nonsense. I am surrounded by tens of thousands of Roman rite Catholics who read Scripture and know that divinization is participation in the divine life...as it is told them in Scripture.

You make yourself look silly when you do this kind of thing. I pray you outgrow the need.

They will then try to explain to you that eternal life is NOT about participation in Divinity but about the Beatific Vision of God. And that is indeed the authentic Catholic teaching.

"That the blessed see God is a dogma of faith, expressly defined by Benedict XII (1336):

"We define that the souls of all the saints in heaven have seen and do see the Divine Essence by direct intuition and face to face [visione intuitivâ et etiam faciali], in such wise that nothing created intervenes as an object of vision, but the Divine Essence presents itself to their immediate gaze, unveiled, clearly and openly; moreover, that in this vision they enjoy the Divine Essence, and that, in virtue of this vision and this enjoyment, they are truly blessed and possess eternal life and eternal rest" (Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. 10, n. 530--old edition, n, 456; cf. nn. 693, 1084, 1458 old, nn. 588, 868)."

There is no need to point out how entirely antithetical the papal teaching is for the Orthodox.

Wow that is completely opposed to EO thought...so if Catholics believe in theosis, would they believe that they participate in the essence of God (i.e. become God by nature)? Sounds like a slippery slope for me...if they can clearly see and "enjoy" the Divine Essence, then what stops them from participating in it?

There we see something clearly defined by the Pope as dogma - the blessed in heaven see and enjoy the Divine Essence.

If theosis is also a dogma we would expect a similar dogmatic statement. Theosis is, after all. a major truth. As far as I am aware there is no papal or magisterial statement and those promoting it are really flying by the seat of their pants.

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

yep, that's theosis

Then somebody should announce the glad tidings to the Catholic faithful. Talk of theosis and becoming "partakers of the divine nature" generally astounds them and they ask, with a glazed look in their eyes "Father, have you become a Buddhist?"

More nonsense. I am surrounded by tens of thousands of Roman rite Catholics who read Scripture and know that divinization is participation in the divine life...as it is told them in Scripture.

You make yourself look silly when you do this kind of thing. I pray you outgrow the need.

Please be mindful that you are talking to a member of our clergy...

I am mindful. That is precisely what upsets me.

What upsets me is that you project, at least on this forum, a piecemeal view of Catholic theology. Play up theosis as a personal predilicton. Never mention that the Beatific Vision of the Divine Essence is the authentic Catholic teaching on life after death. When we were kids the Beatific Vision was a frequent topic in catechism classes.

The Baltimore Catechism....420. Q. What is Heaven?

A. Heaven is the state of everlasting life in which we see God face to face, are made like unto Him in glory, and enjoy eternal happiness.

"God face to face,"--that is, as He is. We shall not see Him with the eyes of the body, but of the soul. That we may see with our natural eyes, two things are necessary: first, an object to look at, and secondly, light to see it. Now, to see God in Heaven we need a special light, which is called the "light of glory." God Himself gives us this light and thus enables us to see Him as He is. This beautiful vision of God in Heaven is called the "beatific vision," and thus our whole life in Heaven--our joy and happiness--consists in the enjoyment of the beatific vision.

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.